GP100 vs. S & W 686 vs. S & W 27 vs. YOUR CHOICE [Archive]

View Full Version : GP100 vs. S & W 686 vs. S & W 27 vs. YOUR CHOICE

Doc Safari

11-18-13, 14:53

w3453l

11-18-13, 15:38

SeriousStudent

11-18-13, 16:23

I don't own any of the revolvers you mentioned, but I do have a Ruger Super Redhawk in .44 mag. With that, I can say that you won't be disappointed with a Ruger. I myself am looking to buy a GP100. I handled one alongside the S&W, and the Ruger just got my hand better. I have small hands though. I shot a S&W 686, and it was nice but the GP100 fit my hand a lot more comfortably. Rugers are built like tanks too

You captured a very good point. If you have smaller hands, the GP100 may be an excellent fit for you. I'd love to snag one of those Wiley Clapp TALO guns, if I were in the market for a GP100. They are about 800 bucks, though - be forewarned.

Doc Glockster - how big are your paws? Also, do you have arthritis in your hands? I do, and that also makes the recoil of a hot .357 a challenge. One of those JM 625's might actually be a bit easier on the hands. I shot one a few years ago, and really enjoyed it.

Us old geezers have to help each other out, I hope you find what you are looking for. :cool:

Doc Safari

11-18-13, 16:36

Doc Glockster - how big are your paws? Also, do you have arthritis in your hands? I do, and that also makes the recoil of a hot .357 a challenge. One of those JM 625's might actually be a bit easier on the hands. I shot one a few years ago, and really enjoyed it.

I have somewhat stubby fingers, but I am not "ham-handed" or anything. As for arthritis, no, but I do have carpal tunnel. I usually have no trouble firing standard pressure .357. The beauty of three-fifty-seven is that you can shoot thirty-eight special.

My beef against the GP100 is the abbreviated grip frame. I may opt to locate a minty Security Six or Service Six. I used to love my S&W 686.

Us old geezers have to help each other out, I hope you find what you are looking for. :cool:

LOL... Thanks....I think. :D

glocktogo

11-18-13, 16:50

I happen to have owned all three on your list, along with a 19 and a 66. My hands down favorite to shoot is the 686. For carry, obviously the 66 gets the nod.

Double3

11-18-13, 16:53

I have a 686 and really like it.

Makes me look like I know how to shoot.

Kain

11-18-13, 17:02

Personally a fan of the Ruger GP100, my father has one and they are built tough. That said, Smith 686s can be had with 7 shot cylinders, the 686 Plus is the model designation I do believe. However, if six rounds of .357 are enough for you, I would seriously look around your local gun stores and see if you can't find a see on a used revolver. Have seen older Smith and Colts in .357 pop up for very good prices used from time to time, and while they may not be as quick and flashy, they can be a bit cheaper, and in my experience the triggers on them do tend to be smoother and at least to me lighter than most of the newer offerings/ And no I am not throwing it out there because the guns are as old as you geezers ;) Picked up a Colt Police Positive earlier this year for $280 out the door, only .38, but its good shooter and I enjoy it.

Pi3

11-18-13, 18:48

686 six shot or 686 plus seven shot or 327 eight shot.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/411546995

If you put an rmr on your auto, couldn't you rack the slide on the edge of the night table or with the side of your arm? I'm in my 60s and don't have any plans on switching to revolver from auto for home defense.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?45196-S-amp-W-M-amp-P-and-Trijicon-RMR

brushy bill

11-18-13, 21:06

Doc Safari

11-18-13, 21:14

I've owned all three and only the GP100 remains. I believe it is a more durable revolver and better all around choice. I would not get the new MIM version introduced in the last couple of years.

I'm not sure I would rule that out 100%. Modern MIM is supposedly a lot better and more durable than in the past. Plus, Ruger has used investment cast parts for years so they could very well have it perfected by now.

I'd have to see some data before I make up my mind about this.

glocktogo

11-18-13, 22:20

I've owned all three and only the GP100 remains. I believe it is a more durable revolver and better all around choice. I would not get the new MIM version introduced in the last couple of years. The model 27 was the most refined, but I've read that on the N frames if you get the cylinder moving too quickly, you can wear the cylinder stops. The 686 was nice enough, but the side plate vs solid frame of the Ruger reduces durability.

I've heard this repeatedly. Yet I've never heard of a single frame breaking due to the alleged "weakness" of the sideplate setup.

I have shot a K Frame enough to require setting the barrel back. I haven't done the same with an L Frame and can only imagine how many full power loads would be required to do it.

weggy

11-18-13, 22:44

S&W 66 4''

19852

11-19-13, 07:39

I don't own any of the models you mentioned but I have owned many revolvers. My favorite, even when compared to some nice autos, is a S&W M13 3" HB. A fixed sight K frame. Sights perfectly regulated for 158gr bullets and a round butt makes it easy to carry. I did handle a Ruger Wily Clapp 3" GP 100 which was very nice, expensive and great sights.

PD Sgt.

11-19-13, 09:00

I would opt for the 686 myself, and probably look for a minty pre-lock if I could. I have never had a problem with a lock, but on my J frames the older, pre-lock steel frames just feel smoother. For the home I would prefer a 3 or 4 inch barrel. I personally have been keeping an eye out for a good condition 3" CS-1 if I can find one at a fair price.

I did have a chance to put a few rounds through a friend's Security Six a while back, and that was pretty smooth as well. I just prefer the feel and aesthetics of the Smith revolvers.

jpgm

11-19-13, 09:56

I have a 4" SS GP100 with the factory adjustable sights. I put packmayr compact grips on for more control with my small hands. Carries well in a Galco Fletch holster. It's a great shooter, even with hot loads. I no longer carry it concealed because the weight/ size/ round count/ trigger reset are not as good as my G22 or G27.

jpgm

ScottsBad

11-19-13, 10:54

I have an old Stainless GP100 3". If you are looking for a durable pistol the GP100 is that. I'm very happy with mine. It is not the smoothest revolver (my 60's era Python takes that prize), but it works very well and I really like the grip. I have fairly large hands and it works fine for me, but it seems to work ok for most folks who shoot it. I think the design is inherently STOUT and durable which always makes me feel confident it will go bang when I need it to. I like the .357/.38 capability as well.

I am still able to manage a semi-auto easily enough, but I will NEVER get rid of my GP100!

I don't like the newer revolvers that use MIM, I prefer the forged pieces. I see the older GP100s out there for sale sometimes. Funny thing, in the last couple 3 years I've seen more chatter about the GP100 (positive) than I saw before. So I think people are noticing it more which made the price go up IMHO.

I only have limited experience with the S&Ws, and they make a very good revolver too.

Doc Safari

11-19-13, 11:19

On the subject of MIM parts in the GP100, here is a response, supposedly from Ruger:

http://gunnerforum.com/double-action-revolvers/10914-ruger-using-mim.html

Thank you for using the Ruger On-Line Customer Support Request Form.

This e-mail is in response to your question or comment of 05/08/2011
Request No: 95236

Comment / question:

is Ruger now using some MIM parts in the sp101 and gp100???

if so, could you please advise what parts?

Response:
Yes, the Crane latch, cylinder latch, front sight.

If you need further information, please visit our website at www.ruger.com or contact us at:

Revolvers, shotguns, rifles, 10/22 Charger Pistol: (603) 865-2442
Pistols: (928) 778-6555
Serial Number History Information: (603) 865-2424

Please note: This e-mail is sent from a notification-only address that cannot accept incoming e-mail. Please do not reply to this message.

Sincerely,
Ruger Firearms

Anybody care to advise if these parts are de facto inferior if they are MIM?

Mr. Smith

11-19-13, 11:54

The Smith 627 pro makes a great night stand gun.
This is one I did some time back.
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy358/SuperiorFirearms/REVOLVERS/100_1052_zps12341b84.jpg (http://s807.photobucket.com/user/SuperiorFirearms/media/REVOLVERS/100_1052_zps12341b84.jpg.html)http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy358/SuperiorFirearms/REVOLVERS/100_1051_zpsf091372b.jpg (http://s807.photobucket.com/user/SuperiorFirearms/media/REVOLVERS/100_1051_zpsf091372b.jpg.html)http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy358/SuperiorFirearms/REVOLVERS/100_1049_zps688b98d2.jpg (http://s807.photobucket.com/user/SuperiorFirearms/media/REVOLVERS/100_1049_zps688b98d2.jpg.html)
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy358/SuperiorFirearms/REVOLVERS/100_1059_zpsfd918eb6.jpg (http://s807.photobucket.com/user/SuperiorFirearms/media/REVOLVERS/100_1059_zpsfd918eb6.jpg.html)

The 8 shot guns bring a lot to the table in the revolver world.

Pi3

11-19-13, 14:05

I want one. Very compelling.
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/411546361

Wildcat

11-19-13, 17:00

My personal experience with a GP-100 equates to about 12k rounds. For a while I was using it to shoot at local steel plate matches so it has been used pretty hard including on-the-clock reloads.

One thing I noticed versus the Smith is even running the gun hard, the Ruger cylinder notches do not peen much at all, where the Smith will repeatedly turn up a burr on the trailing edge of the slots.

Ruger was putting a lot of their casting experience to work in making the gun even ten years ago. Not MIM, but still cast parts that are subsequently machined. I think its held up pretty well. The trigger in the GP is not what you can get out of a Smith but it isn't bad either.

Doc Safari

11-19-13, 17:06

One thing I noticed versus the Smith is even running the gun hard, the Ruger cylinder notches do not peen much at all, where the Smith will repeatedly turn up a burr on the trailing edge of the slots.

Is there anything wrong with this peening, or is it just cosmetic? I had an old Smith revolver many years ago that had really visibly ovaled edges on the cylinder notches. It shot fine. Was that gun on borrowed time?

Ruger was putting a lot of their casting experience to work in making the gun even ten years ago. Not MIM, but still cast parts that are subsequently machined. I think its held up pretty well. The trigger in the GP is not what you can get out of a Smith but it isn't bad either.

Ruger has been using investment casting for years (a form of MIM). I could understand if the hammer or transfer bar were MIM that this is asking for trouble, but other non-impact parts don't worry me as much.

Can anyone give an educated answer as to why this might or might not be inferior?

walkin' trails

11-19-13, 18:51

I used to carry a 686 back in the early 90s and never had any problems with it. In fact the only problem with one I ever saw was an ejector rod backing out keeping the cylinder from opening easily. Easily fixed. Easily prevented. They won't blow up with factory loaded ammo.

I'm not a Ruger revolver fan, but has nothing to do with their construction. S&W actions lend themselves better to action tuning than the Ruger. I have known people who handloaded and preferred the Rugers, but Rugers will still blow up with dangerously overpressured loads. I don't think the design of the 686'S frame or it being forged instead of cast makes it less durable. All of the revolvers I've seen that were blown up from hot loads blew out the cylinder and top strap, not the side plate.

Ultimately it's a choice to be made based on personal preference, not durability, as durability is a moot point between the two. I prefer the K-frames.

brushy bill

11-19-13, 21:22

Not MIM, but still cast parts that are subsequently machined.

The latest GPs have a MIM trigger and hammer. Note the hollow recess in the back of the trigger.

robotoid

11-20-13, 10:43

Here's my take. I've been a pretty much die hard S&W revolver fan for 25+ years. I learned how to shoot handguns with a S&W 65. I recently have been intrigued by the GP100, just because I was looking for a 3" barrel six shot 357 revolver and the S&W's fitting this bill have skyrocketed in price. I recently bought a new production 3" GP100, but have not shot it yet. I am very impressed with the fit and finish and trigger pull, much more so than any new production S&W I've purchased in recent years. My only complaint about the GP would be the lack of selection of grips available. As much as I dislike Pachmayr grips, they are the best feeling and make the gun point the best I've tried so far. The compact Pachmayr (model GP-C) for the GP100 is discontinued, but I was able to seek out 2 sets at reasonable price ($25 ea) while I had seen the same grip selling in eBay for $55-60 (crazy!!!). The gun seems to point high with the Uncle Mikes, stock Hogue, and rubber/wood Altamont (old style factory replicas) I have tried. I'm impressed enough by the GP I'm thinking I may pick up another in 4 or 5" barrel trim and sell off my S&W 681, or maybe pick up a SP101.

w3453l

11-20-13, 15:18

Doc Safari

11-20-13, 15:27

Apparently Smith has been using MIM hammers and other parts in their J-frames for some time.

Here is a pretty good explanation of the MIM process from another forum, apparently a reproduced letter from S & W:

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=340004

I have read with much interest the many comments in this [Smith and Wesson] forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are, "people in general don't like/trust MIM parts", and, "no one has said why." I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hard look at our "Life Time Service Policy". It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more important to a revolvers feel than the all-important Single Action that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or lose their edge the "feel" is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts.

Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old-style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light magnum J-frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer’s reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM. The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is revolver-to-revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and trigger-pull monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

Let's shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren't specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a “green part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the green part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The green parts are then placed in a sintering furnace filled with dry hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the wax in the green part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our heat treat facility for hardening and in the case of hammers and triggers, case hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, case thickness and core hardness are for the most part identical to parts manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn't let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn’t happen, resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between $30,000.00 and $50,000.00; once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have, in my view, a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process. Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb [Belin,
Project Manager, Smith & Wesson]

So, does that satisfy naysayers that MIM parts are GTG?

I'm still on the fence, so I'll watch for other responses.

Wildcat

11-20-13, 16:14

The latest GPs have a MIM trigger and hammer. Note the hollow recess in the back of the trigger.

Mine is over ten years old and nearly all the parts on this specimen have an, often small, unfinished surface somewhere with a texture indicating they started life as investment castings. Note these are not MIM parts.

There is a distinction between MIM and investment casting as the processes are different though they both produce castings.

Obviously firearms makers responded to the intense spike in demand several years ago by trying to reduce the labor it takes to make their product. MIM is more prevalent today and producing higher quality parts than it did even a few years ago.

FWIW Smith Wesson is making extensive use of MIM parts today (including hammers)

brushy bill

11-20-13, 19:13

FWIW Smith Wesson is making extensive use of MIM parts today (including hammers)

Roger. That is why I said GP and not S&W (that and the lock).

cbmj

11-20-13, 20:21

I have a older 4" GP also a newer 3" GP with mim parts and a 20 yr. S&W 686. All three have had trigger work done, the S&W has a shorter trigger stroke but all three are smooth. Between the two GP's I can't really tell a difference between the two.

lowbar

11-21-13, 06:07

I've run the gamut on revolvers. From Colt Anaconda's to multiple Smith's and Ruger's. I really liked the SP101, but it was snappy and not that fun to shoot. It would leave my hand tingling after a few rounds of high grade .357 (sold it). With that said I prefer a heavy or beefier revolver. I picked up a REAL Ruger Blackhawk .357 Cowboy Action and thats a blast to shoot. Almost feels like a .22, low recoil. I've got my eyes set on another Ruger soon, the GP100 variety. I've handled a few and really like the size and beefiness of it. Granted its no carry piece, but for nightstand duty it can't be beat. There is just something about a nice big .357 revolver!

sewvacman

11-21-13, 07:40

I've owned both the gp100 and 686. I had traded the gp100 6" 20 years ago for a mak90. I missed it so much I just traded back to the same guy for a 686 4" just 2 weeks ago. I love both guns but I still miss the 6" barrel. I think either would be a good choice but if you go with an older Smith w/ case hardened steel you will never lose money on it, if you don't get reamed on cost, you will always be able to get rid of it for at least what you bought it for. I know that this is not much of a concern since this is your "old man" gun but I try to always see guns as an investment. (that's what I tell the wife at least) They have paid many of my mortgage payments in the past when I needed them too and it's rare I take a loss on them.

MistWolf

11-21-13, 10:50

I have a 686 that has served me well since the late 80s and has thousands of rounds through it, both 38 Special and 357 magnum. The 38s were target loads and the 357s loaded as hot as practical. The pistol was custom tuned when I got it but has been shot so much it has loosened up over the years. It has always worked except for the occasional hard primer, but that was due to the trigger being tuned just a little too light. The 686 is my favorite double action revolver and has held up well under the heavy use, most of it double action. I suppose I really should take this high mileage revolver in to a good smith and have it gone through
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/Handguns/DSC_0002_zpsf66d1c5b.jpg

The Rugers feel heftier but being cast rather than forged, they have to be to offer the same strength. Their triggers have never felt as refined as the Smith to me. Then again, the Smith trigger doesn't feel quite as refined as the Colt.

You can't go wrong with the Model 27. My father had a few, including a Highway Patrol model. It's size is both it's strength and bane. It's a big, heavy piece but it will take on any 357 load you can throw at it. The standard grips are are oversized and it was intended they'd be cut down to fit the shooter's hand although nobody ever did. Most just replaced them. But once the grips are reduced to a manageable size, the large framed revolver is comfortable to shoot.

The 586/686 with the full underlug barrel became very popular although with the new barrel profile it lost some of it's weigh advantage. At that time, bowling pin shooting was wildly popular. Shooters felt the full underlugged barrel helped control muzzle rise and recoil and the 586/686 became the pistol of choice. There was a voice or two in the wilderness pointing out the standard barrel profile was more practical for every day carry, but it did nothing to change the mind of the buying public. It's ironic because the big selling point of the L frame was a 357 in a smaller, lighter package than the Model 27 but better able to withstand heavy use of 357 loads than the K frame. Still, I prefer the smaller size of the 686 although my 6 inch underlugged barrel is probably heavier than a Model 27 with standard barrel would be.

I like shooting the 686. It's very accurate and the sight picture clean. Between the lower bore line and the Hogue grips, it feels like it rolls less in my hands than other revolvers. Recoil is comfortable, even with hot 357 loads. With it's tuned trigger and action, the DA pull is smooth and consistent with no stacking at all. Doc, you can't go wrong with the (pre-lock) S&W L frame. For L frames with adjustable sights look for a 586 (blue steel) or 686 (stainless steel). Fixed sights are designated 581 (blued) & 681 (stainless)

matemike

11-21-13, 12:04

I love my 6" GP100 in .357
Bought it to compliment my Marlin .357 lever gun and never thought twice about my decision to go with ruger. Especially for keeping it all stock. I feel the full barrel length underlug improves toughness, accuracy, recoil and last but not least, the looks.

I am however in the market for a .44 mag revolver to compliment my Marlin 44 SS lever gun, and I'll be looking towards S&W for that.

robotoid

11-25-13, 19:20

With the GP100, what made you choose the 3" over the 4" barrel? I keep flip flopping between those two. I like the look of the 4" better, but does the 3" off much more? I'm looking to get one as more of a camping/mountain gun. I'm planning to have the hammer bobbed too

3" is just personal preference for me. I liked that it had fixed sights too.

Straight Shooter

11-25-13, 23:42

DOC... my 3" SP101 has been a daisy. Absolute rock solid, stout, accurate piece. I did the following to it:
Bobbed the hammer, chamfered/polished the cylinders, installed a Gemini Customs fiber optic red front sight, put on a pair of
EXCELLENT Trausch grips, and dry fired the hell out of it initially. I LOVE 3" revolvers, always have. I use both SPEEDSTRIPS and
the outstanding COMP 2 speedloaders, and life is good my friend.
ADDED: It is in rotation as a carry piece, and also is MY nightstand gun.

williejc

11-26-13, 01:21

I've owned the Ruger GP and the S&W 686 and give them equal status. Buy the first good deal of either that you find. I also have owned the S&W 27 and 28, which are the larger N frames with the bigger grip. The 686 has the smaller K frame grip size, which is easier to manage. Current N frames now have the K frame grip size. If you shoot double action, I suggest the Smiths over the Ruger. I bet that you end up with both.

You didn't ask about Ruger Security-Six/Service-Six revolvers(discontinued). They offer a strong, compact medium size choice. It won't be difficult to find a used but as new one in the $425-450 range--maybe less.

Pi3

11-26-13, 10:58

I would have all revolvers by the same manufacturer, whichever that is- If no other reason than having the cylinder release catch require the same motion to open. This is assuming that you might be trying to perform a speed reload in a crisis situation.

Bigun

11-29-13, 05:34

I've owned most of the revolvers mentioned in theis thread. The only .357 mag I own today is a minty Stainless steel 4" Security Six that I picked up for a song. It's much lighter than the 686 or the GP100 and way more durable than a model 19 or 66. Not nearly as sexy though. It lives on a constant diet of Federal 180 grain 357 rounds and has not stuttered once.

usmcvet

11-29-13, 07:46

The 686 is what I know and like. That said the 8 shot 627 looks like a pretty cool option. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765955_-1_757775_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
I think you can get a seven shot 686 theses days. Mr. Smith is an artist! One of his guns would be an outstanding choice.

I don't care for the release on the Ruger revolvers.

Awesome1228

11-29-13, 14:42

My opinion-S&W model 19. The Combat Magnum was the standard service revolver for decades for a reason. Several reasons, actually. Adjustable sights-for some this matters, for others not so much-great ergonomics, easy point-ability, awesome trigger in both single and double action, tough as a tank, and thousands upon thousands produced. If you get a pre 1982 manufacture, they have the pinned barrel and recessed cylinders. For some, this is a big deal. It's not like they suck after that, but the craftsmanship just screams high quality. This is the only one on this list that I currently own, and I will never part with it.

The model 27 is also a great gun. A little heavier frame than the 19, but other wise pretty similar characteristics. Slightly less recoil on the 27 due to the frame, but the 19 points a little easier, in my opinion. Also, the 27 seems to be a little less plentiful than the 19. All that said, for me, if there was a 27 and a 19 side by side, I would pick up the 19. But I wouldnt feel bad about it if all I had available was a 27. It would be my second choice behind the 19.

As someone else mentioned, a model 13 is a good choice as well. 3 inch barrel with round butt is great for carry, but for your purposes as a nightstand gun those qualities are not as important. It is still a great gun though.

The 686 full underlug barrel is a drawback, at least for me. There is a ton of discussion out there on this. For some, myself included, the weight at the end of the barrel feels awkward. The other side of the discussion is that it reduces rise. For me, it doesn't feel natural. This would actually be my last choice of those on your list.

The Ruger GP100 is a good gun, but the trigger on a Smith is much better. Smoother and a crisper break. Heavier than a comparable sized smith due to the casting process as has been discussed already. I like Rugers a lot, and I would't turn down this gun, but it wouldn't be my first choice. In fact, the Smith 19 or 27 would both be higher on my list than this one.

titsonritz

11-29-13, 22:26

I'm a sucker for K frame Smiths

Vic303

12-01-13, 08:13

DH loves his SW27, but I do not like how it fits my smaller slimmer hands. I am firmly in the GP100 camp. I got mine a long time ago, and with a Wolff spring kit in it, the trigger is much improved.

seb5

12-03-13, 09:16

I think I've owned all of the listed choices, probably all of them listed in the thread at one time or another. I really like revolvers but own more autos nowadays. My take is that as a HD weapon you're not going to carry it so the weight, within limits is moot. It is a revolver and being a traditionalist is a reload important to you. I personally prefer 6 as I've always been able to reload them easier than a 7 shot. My first recommendation would be a 625 using full moons but that wasn't a choice. For me the 4 or 5 inch tubes always seemed more natural to me. Anything longer is fine but I just don't prefer it. With high pressure loads and limited rounds on tap I prefer the added control and lessened blast of the longer barrel to the 3" tubes. I think the Smiths are generally a little more refined and smoother but probably not as tough as the Rugers, but that's nothing but my feeling. I also detest the S&W lock. If you look at the N frames you should consider the big bores but an old 28 is a joy to shoot. If it's just for HD why not a 581/681? Save a few bucks and loose nothing for HD purposes. So, to answer your question if it's new I'd probably go Ruger but for used I'd go for a pre lock 686.

Crow Hunter

12-03-13, 19:18

I still own a 686 Power Port with a 6" barrel. I don't really like the long full underlugged barrel and the length. I is very front heavy and I hit bump the barrel on things at times because I am so used to a Glock 19 sized gun.

I would prefer a 4" with a tapered barrel. I have a junky old Taurus that is a 4" tapered and I much prefer it's handling.

That 6" Power Port is just too accurate to get rid of though. :)

As an aside, Investment Casting and MIM aren't the same thing at all.

Investment casting is the same as normal casting except you "burn away" the pattern out the sand mold rather than pressing a pattern into the sand and pouring liquid metal into it. You make an inverse pattern out of ceramic coated styrofoam (Saturn used to do this for engine blocks) or wax (Lost wax process) or other sacrificial material and you squeeze green sand around it. This lets you get much closer to "near net shape" and more precise castings so you don't have a much material to machine away after the fact. In normal casting you have to make the parts much more oversize than the finished product because you have less precision when you are just pressing a cope and drag into a block of sand and you will have to account for the front and back of the patterns not lining up and other issues. Investment casting is much more precise, but it is also more expensive because you have to have the lost pattern made and the tooling/materials usage there. If, however you can get a net reduction in machining time (which is usually much more expensive), it is usually a win/win.

MIM is a sintering process. Completely different and MUCH more precise. Many times MIM parts don't even need any type of machining at all, they come out in the final shape.

Hook686

12-06-13, 22:35

My personal choice was the S&W 627PC. Eight shots of .357 magnum is a joy to experience, only out done by the 11 shots using a Desert Eagle XIX.

RussB

12-07-13, 18:53

Given that you asked about a model 27, I'll assume you're OK with N frames. Now for an HD revolver, I recommend an 8-shot N frame 627.

I still own a GP-100, and will likely pass it on to my heirs one day. It's been a fine revolver. The trigger was smoothed up, and I replaced the grip panels with something a little more attractive. Sights are Williams "fire sites"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/RussBert/Ruger/DSC06592.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/RussBert/media/Ruger/DSC06592.jpg.html)

Don Robison

12-07-13, 19:06

I like all of them. I currently have 3 M27s, 1 M686, 2 M681s, but no GP100. Looking to pick up a Wiley Clapp GP100 though. My 3" SP101 is a nice smallish revolver.

SeriousStudent

12-07-13, 19:44

....... Looking to pick up a Wiley Clapp GP100 though. ......

I have been aching for one of those as well. I tried Vic303's GP100, and it fit my hand perfectly.

I'm taking a weekend revolver class in the spring with a bunch of fellow old fossils. I'll likely snag one of those Wiley Clapp models in a moment of weakness before then.

jerhelo

12-08-13, 17:37

I love my 4" & 6" 686+'s, I want a 2.5" or 3" next. My BBQ gun though is Colt Python 6" stainless....

T2C

12-08-13, 17:45

I would buy the GP100 or S&W 686, whichever fits your hands better.

twm134

12-22-13, 17:15

I have broken the hammer studs and trigger studs on K and N frames. I LOVE Smith revolvers, but make no mistake about it, Rugers are more durable.

HKGuns

12-22-13, 17:44

Get the Model 27 and don't look back. They are that good......smooth shooting and absolutely beautiful.

http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v74/p1456237112-5.jpg

ETA: I own and like all three, there is just something about holding and shooting a 27.

brushy bill

12-22-13, 18:44

Ruger is introducing a Match Champion that looks nice so long as it is not chock full of MIM, which I am afraid it will be.

Dienekes

12-22-13, 19:07

Have had various N frames; love the looks and the quality, but for me they are BIG. M19/66s in 4" are great guns and handle very well for me. Used Security Sixes in 4" for work. Not as pretty as Smiths but great utility guns. Only have one GP-100, a 4" with a trigger Job. It's about the same weight as an N frame 4" but easier for me to handle; the stock grips feel as good as Spegels but absorb recoil beautifully. Between that and the weight of the gun .357/125s feel like .38 wadcutters. Only drawback to the gun is that it's hefty when worn all day.

Hard to wrong with any of these!

THCDDM4

01-09-14, 18:15

With that list I don't think you could really go wrong. All really good wheel guns.

I have the shot all on your list, but I have shot Rugers WAY more than the smiths listed.

I have an old Security six 2.75" in my bed side table drawer that doubles as my mountain/camping/hunting gun. I had a trigger job done on it and it breaks incredibly clean and smooth when cocked/single action. I love that trigger more than any other I have ever tried- and the weight of the gun, it is beefy and shoots incredibly well.

My father in law has a GP and he loves it, as do I when we go shooting. It is a great gun.

I prefer the security six over the GP. It has a little more heft to it, the grip is better angled for my hands and with a pair of houge mon-grips it is very pleasent to shoot oldschool full-house magnum loads.

I'll throw the model 29 combat masterpiece in the mix as well. My father has one and it is a marvelous gun; pinned and recessed old school smithy. I think I might like it better than my secuirty six, but that is more nostalgia than anything. It is just a tad more accurate than my SS (In my hands, not my dads!) as well.

Smiths are much prettier and better engineered than the Rugers in my opinion, but the beefiness the rugers have appeals to me. It makes full house magnums shoot like .38 speicals.

My opinion is get all three on your list, if you can swing it. Try them all out and if you need/feel like selling 2 of them, it should be very easy and you won't be seeing a significant loss in $$$.

If I had the cash right now I would buy 1 of each on your list and keep them all!

Which way are you leaning thus far Doc?

Wheel guns are just beautiful, I would own a lot more if I wasn't buying so many AR's, magazines and ammo over the last few years.

CDR_Glock

01-24-14, 20:38

I have a GP100 SS 6". It's a great gun but a 6" barrel is a bit cumbersome. Shoots well and it is built like a tank. Friends of mine who want a revolver get the nod for this in terms of price/value.

I also have 3 Colt Pythons in 4", 6" and 8". The 4" is the best compromise for handling the size and weight. The trigger is smooth. Pieces have skyrocketed, though.

I have a S&W 627 in a Performance Center 5" and a Pro Series 4". The triggers feel different in action. I prefer the 5" 627. Both carry 8 rounds. Highly accurate. I favor the PC over all of the other revolvers I have.

My 586 Performance Center l-Comp is a 3" 7 round 357 Magnum. Nice compromise for size and weight, too. Built like a tank. Very accurate and has a great trigger.

My other two Snubby revolvers are from S&W. A 442 in 38+P and a 640. The 442 feels great in the pocket, as does the 640. The 640 has more weight. Recoil is still relatively tame but it has the lowest capacity. The 442 has a better trigger even if it's not out of the performance center. I'm going to switch the 640 trigger group with a Wilson Combat.

I have two Taurus revolvers, a Taurus Custom Shop model 605 Snubby and a 6.5" Taurus Tracker 922 in 22 LR and 22 WMR (interchangeable cylinders). The TCS 605 has a great trigger that feels better than a GP 100, SP 101 or even my S&W 640. It is 20 years old and it still shoots like a champ. I just acquired the 922 for 22 WMR. I have not shot it yet. However, the trigger feels closer to a 442 unlike a Ruger SP-101.

Out of those three for choices, the 27 is what I'd favor.http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/01/27/uty9yve6.jpg

SteveS

01-24-14, 21:00

High Altitude

02-07-14, 02:53

Long time S&W revolver shooter. Excellent revolvers with a big following, lots of knowledge out there, parts, smiths to work on them etc......

I never owned a GP100 thinking the S&W was "better".

A friend of mine owns one (3" fixed sight model) and asked me to do a trigger job on it. After I got done working on it and shooting it some, I was VERY impressed. It is a very robust, but simple design. I actually like how it is put together even more than a S&W. Complete detail strip is easy. You can't tune it up as nice for competition use like the S&W, but for defensive use they clean up just as well.

After this experience I am going to pick up a 4" in stainless for myself.

.45fmjoe

02-16-14, 12:43

I am 61 years old now and I grew up on shooting friends Colt Pythons S@W in the time were Bangor Punta owned and were not so good. I bought a Security Six in the middle 1970s and that revolver is beat. I love it just because.

I have a Bangor Punta 5" 27. I bought it NIB and it was problematic. The trigger would bind while firing in DA. I sent it to S&W and they repaired it and did a beautiful trigger job for like $60. I'm stupid happy with it.

sportbikeco

02-21-14, 15:25

Buy an old smith 19 or 13

SteveS

02-21-14, 20:04

I have a Bangor Punta 5" 27. I bought it NIB and it was problematic. The trigger would bind while firing in DA. I sent it to S&W and they repaired it and did a beautiful trigger job for like $60. I'm stupid happy with it.

I owned a Bangor Punta era 586 and it sucked so I sold it. I had a pre Bangor Punta mod 10 at one time that was awesome. Sole it for the 586. Now I have 6 various S@W revolvers that work like a Swiss watches, most impressive.

Warden228D

02-27-14, 11:48

I owned and carried on duty a 4" 686 for 16 years until the agency went Glock 9 years ago. Over 20k rounds (38 and 357 mag Winchester duty loads mixed) went through that 686 with absolutely zero problems. I kept the original wood grips that fit me well and my partner chose a Hogue grip with fingergrooves. The 686 remains in the safe, beside a 6" 586 that accompanies a Marlin 1894, and an older 19. I owned a Ruger security six in the 90's as well and disliked it completely due to what I felt was too many misfires/light hammer strikes (about 1/100) and down the road it went after a gunsmith found no issues...
I have to give the 686 the thumbs up.

VooDoo6Actual

02-27-14, 12:50

I've about decided to invest in one really good .357 revolver for the house. It's not something I'd carry; it's just for the bedroom drawer.

As my father got older and eventually passed away, he found that he could no longer cycle the slide on a semi-auto in order to chamber a round (due to lack of hand strength), but he could shoot a single action trigger on a wheel gun just fine.

So I'm planning to buy a revolver for my old age. I'm only around 50 now, but with an almost constant rollercoaster ride of gun and ammo restriction proposals and buying panics, I'd kind of like to get one and plenty of ammo for it now before the next panic.

I've read many reviews over the years concerning the guns I listed. I'd love to hear some more recent input.

(Like, you wouldn't buy a 686 because none come without the lock if that's the case, for example).

Are there any recent trends like one or the other models just don't have the quality of the old school ones?

I'm willing to seek out one made years ago if I have to.

If you have any suggestions for a .357 wheel gun I haven't mentioned, feel free to chime in and tell us why you prefer that particular one.

(Pics would be nice of whatever your preference is, too. There's just something about a pic of an old wheel gun with black around the front of the chambers that....well....gives me wood.) :D

I owned all of them you mentioned & others. Your always going to get a gazillion answers etc.

To date: I like the #1 S&W pro Series 640, #2 686 & #3 649 in .357 flavor.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766365_-1_775658_757896_757896_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

good luck on your quest for your Holy Grail in Self Defense Snuberoni's...

Super great gun for Night Stand, Hiking, camping, Athletic events, running, skiing, snowmobiling, Helo's, vehicles etc. Minimal weight, printing & max kinetic energy in a compact light package.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/Mobile%20Uploads/SW640-1ProSurvivalSystems_zpsf06e6539.jpg (http://s40.photobucket.com/user/teehee321/media/Mobile%20Uploads/SW640-1ProSurvivalSystems_zpsf06e6539.jpg.html)

mkmckinley

02-27-14, 16:38

In the last ten years I've owned a 6" barreled 586, a 4" 686, and a 4" Colt Python. I've shot and handled a friends GP100 a few times. The only one I still have is the 686. I like it's trigger and ability to be serviced better than the Python's and it doesn't want to rust like the 586 did. The GP-100 seems like a decent revolver but seems just a little bit worse than the 686 in every respect.

brushy bill

02-27-14, 19:49

The GP-100 seems like a decent revolver but seems just a little bit worse than the 686 in every respect.

How so?

Alpha Sierra

03-02-14, 08:01

Honestly, for your application I'd go for the modern heir of the original S&W 357 Magnum: the Model 27 with a 4" barrel. Send it to Mr Smith for an action tune up, put some choice Ahrends cocobolo stocks on it and enjoy.

ETA: if you're on a budget that will not allow a 27, look for a 4" Model 28 (aka Highway Patrolman) and do the same as I recommended above.

brushy bill

03-02-14, 13:26

Good option. I'd prefer an older GP100, but couldn't go wrong with a model 28.

teutonicpolymer

03-04-14, 02:47

S&W 681-3 4" or 625-4 5" if different calibers are permitted

681 is basically the fixed sight version of the 686. if you were putting night sights on then 686-4 instead.

I do not see much advantage to .357 mag over .45 acp when federal hst +p is there so I would rather take the 625 instead. I also like the N-frame feel and the giant cylinder holes which take moonclips.